* i don't know how often i have read "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here" before clicking on the link to this subforum :-).
If you want to create a version of the file that is no longer recognizable by the original raw converters, and you don't mind shifting from one proprietary format to another, than sure, you can convert to dng. DNG, when you pick it apart, is a metadata decorated version of tiff. So, do your your raw conversion first in the native format, then convert to dng if you would like, but there is no benefit to that that you do not realize when converting to tiff other than it is more difficult for the majority of processing tools to deal with it. The only benefit that I can see is that inferior proprietary tools such as lightroom, think of dng as universal, but then look at the results at 100%, and if you have eyes, you won't do that again.
DNG is NOT the holy grail of file formats., it is the lowest common denominator of file formats.
Sorry I really didnt mean to start a debate about file formats. Yes I know that DNGs are not the holy grail. The reason I asked is that Im a long term lightroom user and would like to have copies of P65 files in the library. Yes I know there are better converters - and I would plan to use C1 if I get a P65 back- however the complete integrated workflow with lightroom I find to be very good and well Im just used to it !
Several years ago I converted a lot of my files to DNG because I bought into the notion that DNG might survive where individual companies' formats might not.
BIG mistake! Many were P45 files that can no longer permit C1 to provide such things as lens corrections. I will never do it again.
Fortunately I saw the light soon enough and by the time I got the P45+ I was leaving my files in the Phase tif format - and have ever since.
Lightroom does reasonably well with camera files that represent the majority of the market such as canon or nikon files. Even Leica files are not too bad, but at the moment the higher-end stuff is not well served.
I looked at some S2 files with both lightroom and C1 (no editorial comment since I thought they were "weak") so I have no issue with lightroom per se, but like aperture, they tend to hit the middle of the market and do what 80% of the market requires. Unfortunately I think I fall in that outside 20%.
Then Alpa waded into the debate in Oct 2009 in their news letter.
PS: Further two HR lenses (HR28 and HR40) still have same issue.
We make mistakes so lets move on and get it right.
The data in the DNG is only proprietary (as being opposed to open, since it is unimportant if an openly published, license-fee-free and freely implementable format is proprietary in any *other* sense) if the program which you used to export the data chose to keep something in a proprietary format, or refused/was unable to export it altogether, such as Nikon's encrypted white balance.
By the way, if the software from which you exported the DNG can no longer deal with it, it is clear where to point the finger, right? Most manufacturers are resisting the DNG format with tooth and nail (a few are not, such as Leica), but the tools are all there for them to use and adopt.
DNG normally still contains the pre-debayered data, and is typically much more compact than a TIFF. I would even go so far as to say that TIFF is the stupid version of DNG, for the purposes of photographers, and the only purpose for which I would recommend it would be as a *final* work, i.e. a negative for future prints, without any further editing being desired.So, do your your raw conversion first in the native format, then convert to dng if you would like, but there is no benefit to that that you do not realize when converting to tiff other than it is more difficult for the majority of processing tools to deal with it. The only benefit that I can see is that inferior proprietary tools such as lightroom, think of dng as universal, but then look at the results at 100%, and if you have eyes, you won't do that again.
The advantage of converting to DNG rather than TIFF is that the de-Bayering is still not done, so you have the ability to apply future improvements in this algorithm, when new releases of software comes out, and when was the last release of C1 which didn't claim to have improved the debayering? And the smaller space requirements; it is beyond me why a decent compression scheme has never been universally accepted for TIFFs.
What post-raw-processing tools do you refer to which can modify TIFF but not DNG, and *which are interesting tools for photographers*?
By the way, C1 may still have the edge on Lightroom in debayering, sharpness, and white balance, and in colour profile handling, but Lightroom is light-years ahead of C1 in most other ways, and the gap in quality is getting smaller with each revision. I would not bet against Lightroom and other similar tools for very long any more.
It is already the case that when someone actually masters both programs and posts results to demonstrate the superiority of C1, the differences are diminishingly small, but are described as being huge. This trend will only accelerate. Companies like Phase One simply do not have the R&D budget of Adobe, Apple, or other tools companies.
With the Sinar workflow, you can handle debayering, sharpening, white balance and noise reduction in eXposure, then export to DNG and import to Lightroom, to have the best of both worlds. I think this approach was very forward-looking, and am sorry that they couldn't have had a more supportive parent company than Jenoptik.
I am not sure what would make you call DNG the lowest common denominator. It is a container for IPTC/EXIF and the original raw data, unless you chose to bake in the white balance or something else as you exported, your choice. The DNG is only as stupid as each manufacturer chooses to make it.DNG is NOT the holy grail of file formats., it is the lowest common denominator of file formats.
As opposed to be blessed I would rather carry out our conversation in a professional manner as is befitting with the general spirit of getdpi.
Furthermore I have no wish to hijack this thread as it is concerning the arTec.
So to finish on my part, stating that we have serious issues with sync timing is unfair and incorrect.
As you have discussed with Hasselblad Support and R&D, this is a situation that may occur with some, not all lenses, and there are workarounds for those that won't sync without a wake-up.
This is somewhat a better situation than always having to use a wake-up signal as opposed to some lenses which do not need it at all.
Thanks very much, When the lens has an m setting will give that a go. I am actually quite happy with the way it all works sending in a wake up signal etc. The method works really well with my Silvestri camera with both LF lens and Hass V lens. Also its one less cable that has to go over the top of the camera so I find it more convenient as the cables get in the way of the sliding adapter.
But then perhaps my experience with LR has been overly negative. I have had LR permanently trash a file I never intended to trash, and permanently overwrite an entire import of Leica DNG raws, all with the default settings in place! Some say user error, but I say I used the software at its pre-configured, default settings, and these things should NEVER happen to files in a software in native state...
So while it is maybe fair to say 'some' folks prefer the LR workflow, I can definitely tell you I don't. I don't like the forced library conventions and relative inability to move around and reorganize historical libraries either. Total PITA piece of software when it comes to that... Moreover, the workflow is not 'years ahead' of C1 --- in fact, I find C1's workflow significantly more logical, easier to maneuver through -- especially once you learn the short-cuts -- and light-years more efficient to use compared to LR's, at least for me.
But at least we do agree that the quality of the C1 conversion is way ahead of LR's...
That depends on the implementation. I don't know which DNGs you were comparing to what. The Leica S2 is brand-new, and I wouldn't make any definitive statement based on that until a year or so from now. Leica is in general very new to the game whereas Phase is an old hand, so if you are comparing those, it says more about Leica vs. Phase than about raw formats. The DNG is the size of the image data you put in it (the rest is negligible), so it really only depends on the effort of the manufacturers in that area.As a raw format, I feel DNG takes a back seat as it is relatively huge compared to proprietary raw formats.
One of my earlier points was that when you say "basically sucks", then you are talking about differences which many people can barely discern. Many of the best photos every year are made with Lightroom and Aperture. We are moving in a rarefied atmosphere here, and all of the major raw developers deliver very good results compared to anything from even a couple of years ago.While some folks feel LR is way ahead of C1, the conversion quality still basically sucks when compared to what C1 puts out.
I won't try to say it hasn't happened, or that it was your own fault, but I also recall reading from people who had lost/trashed files with C1 (possibly the fault was their own). As long as a program isn't perfect, and which program is, this risk is always there. I cannot change your opinion, but Lightroom is not known for being unstable or dangerous, so I think it is safe to say that you had a very rare experience.But then perhaps my experience with LR has been overly negative. I have had LR permanently trash a file I never intended to trash, and permanently overwrite an entire import of Leica DNG raws, all with the default settings in place! Some say user error, but I say I used the software at its pre-configured, default settings, and these things should NEVER happen to files in a software in native state...
Sure, we all have our own preferences. You are very familiar with C1, which also tips the balance a bit. I find it relatively opaque, and LR transparent, but that is just me.So while it is maybe fair to say 'some' folks prefer the LR workflow, I can definitely tell you I don't.
Well... I didn't say way ahead, and LR3 has closed the gap somewhat. The areas where I was able to do better were debayering (initial sharpness), white balance, noise reduction, and final sharpness, but I find the general tools much better in LR, including some of the newer local area tools. I haven't tried LR3 though, and it is meant to be noticeably better. I suspect that it would remove one or two objections from my personal list.But at least we do agree that the quality of the C1 conversion is way ahead of LR's...
It is not only Lightroom either; Aperture is also meant to be very good, better than Lightroom in some of the above-mentioned areas, and I am considering switching to Aperture for the next update. It costs the same, I like the development direction of Aperture better, and I like Apple as a company better than Adobe. Anyway, when LR3 is out, I will compare to Aperture and make up my mind.
If you talk about the back itself (for use on a tech camera) I am pretty happy with the 75LV. (if 33MP is enough for you).
Its an older generation but big size sensor without microlenses and still very good higher ISO, IQ very natural look IMO. And the price has been pretty competitive. You also get the option of mounting all kinds of adapters easily, including the rotating adapter which you can use on Hy6 body and also on the Artec.
Is it clunky? Probably yes, I would say all digital MF backs are clunky, leaf maybe a little less and the S2 not. I dont mind if it would be a little more or a little less clunky.
For me it more about IQ-function-reliability-price.
The major 'fault' with the Sinar 75LV back I use is the way the internal mamory works in conjunction with CF card memory. Even copying files between the two is full of issues - all well catalogued. So either shoot to CFor to internal memory. if you shoot to internal memory DONT ever fill the internal memory up - this may lead to a number of issues - including not being able to download your files.
Also careful what kind of formatting you do with the internal memory - it is a convention amongst all back makers that you do a 'format' rather than a delete to get a clean memory to use - with Sinar a format ( the wrong type) can see you lose two important files from internal mempory - and then you are in DS.
Clunkiness is indeed relative - I compare the menu systems and user interface against Hasselbald and Phase One and Leaf - all backs I own or have used - copared to these - Sinar is clunky.
The software menu/interface on teh 75LV is also slower and less intuative. these are qualitative issues for soem - for me it si just a clinky hassle - again compared to other systems.
Still - al lthat being said - I am a big fan of teh Sinar files. The 75LV is a great back to use on a tech camera - because it doesnt have micro lenses and hasnt squished a gazillion pixles onto a chip in order to beat chest abotu # of pixels.
I find Sinar colour workflow to be the easiest to us and get a true natural looking colour from. I think all teh other makers impose a standard 'look' that isnt as neutral as Sinar.
I also like the workflow logic of Sinar - which produces a DNG file after conversion and can be openned by pretty much any piece of software with basic raw processing (temp / color ) of your choice in place.
I cant comment about thethered shooting - I suspect expose wontbe as good or solid as Phocus or C1 - but I dont shoot tethered.
Now overlay another set of clunkiness if you attach teh back to a Hy6. Teh Hy6 is a a beautiful camera - however its early guises is full of issues - like lcd readouts which are a jubled mess, like autofocus which doesnt work, like not being able to write which lens you use on teh metadata on teh back, like clunky exposure readings.
Again these are all teethign problems I am sure and I look forward to getting my camera back as well as teh back all optimised and fixed.
however given original price tags - the user shoudl have had NONE of these issues to contend with.
Stuff you should know - the original Hys body cable release is priced at $600 Aussie down here. Can you believe that nonsense?!!! WTF! make sure you get a special tiny itsy bitsy usb cabel to do firmware upgrdes on teh body - otherwise you cant. WHY WHY two different cables to transfer data from and into??!!!! wtf twere they thinking??
Proprietary Rollie thread sizes - what a total PAIN.
funny hood mounting for lenses and EXPENSIVE hoods for lenses - what another RIP-OFF
So the interface between Sinar and Hy6 and the criminally expensive Rollie pricing regimes =- all contributed to diminish the value proposition for teh combination.
A (moderately) happy owner of Sinar/Hy6 - All said I do prefer using the Hy6 to any other body. and if Sinar fixes its software ( careful not to upgrade to version 7.03 Expose) then you have a great back and MF camera with a superb range of optics..
Despite what i said i do seem to have precipitated an argument about DNG ! Sorry !
I am still not clear if Lightroom can read/open P1 tiffs?
As far as the software discussion goes - I find the lightroom workflow very good.Sure there are times where I use other developers/programs for special images , but I find LR is the easiest and best solution (for me) 90% of the time.
here are a couple of snaps of my arTec taken with M9 .. DNG alert !
When you attempt to view them at 100%, the preview takes about 7 seconds to "develop" which tries my patience on a 3.03GHz MacBookPro with 8G of memory.
Lcc corrections are not picked up by lightroom since they are carries separately from the tiff file. The phase one file format that includes lcc data apparently is not supported by lightroom.
Lightroom does not seem to pick up the lens corrections that C1 does for Phase one lenses. You can process a Phase one tiff by c1 and generate a "regular" tiff, which can them be imported into lightroom for cataloging, but the "development" has been done by C1.
peterA and t_streng - thanks a lot for your replies re possible issues with the sinar back!
indeed, it's either the artec or another tec camera i'm interested in. being able to rotate the back is something i'd really appreciate and the same holds for a sliding back. and that always brings me back to the artec. (the cambo wrs might be another option but there isn't the kind of sliding back i'd get with the artec).
the resolution of the 75LV would be adequate - and looking at the file quality of my m8 and m9, i don't think that a somehow dated sensor is a problem. the leaf, being rotatable, might be an alternative but then i don't know if i would get a workflow as convenient as the sinar one when it comes to white shading files (assuming it's true what i have read about it :-). but then again: i haven't used the sinar software and i happen to like c1 - which i could use with a leaf back.
it's probably time for a test drive ...
Tested and played with the artec - well done - NO flares with HR40mm. amazing with HR23mm.
Lens shade like Lee's - quick release - adapter on each lens nicely done!
Now just needing to get a DB that works!
Well DONE - arTec!
BTW: Greetings to "JPS".
Would love to get my hands on one to test, but extremely difficult to find one anywhere in the states...
I would recommend anybody who is interested to directly call (not mail) Sinar Switzerland. Nice people over there.
I can confirm that Sinar ( in Australia) now is run by a fantastic person - a real pleasure to deal with and knowledgeable not only about Sinar - but also about photography- as in real photography.
So it saddens me to hear someone like Jack say that he cant even source a Sinar in the US (of all places) to try.
Seriously they are shooting themseklves in the foot - best products and worst marketing strategies in the largest market...
You will LOVE the arTec - may end up doing some horse-trading (just kidding)!
Many are saying the same - hard to get their hands on one . Perhaps I can convince my Sinar pimp friend (distributor - VERY lovely guy and knowledgeable as per PeterA comment immediately above) to loan me one so I can fly home to LA and see how many I can sign up for one.
Better, Jack, coming from you end is 40% cheaper on Qantas. Everything is so expensive here that's why I ended up buying Cambo 23D - the weight could anchored a QEII!
Actually, I may try and surprise my wife with a trip to NZ to visit some friends after your winter ends. A few days in and around Sydney on the way over or back would certainly be on the schedule, so mayhaps we can make that happen --- and it's good bet I won't see an ArTech between now and then over here...
But seriously, at least for me, I'm 98% convinced I want a full view cam with movements at each end, and for me that decision is made: the Arca M-2 with Rotaslide. First lenses are either Rodie 40HR, 70HR and 135 APO, or Schneider 47XL, 72 and 135...
http://www.capturescanprint.com/) (hope I'm allow to provide the link). I think the commission may be that if I sell 10x I get one free from Sinar (..just kidding) - all helps are pro bono and any offences are to further my humility.
I am finding those cameras (M2, Techno ...) hard to focus at infinity, especially with wide angles. If the focus goes slighty beyond infinity everything is soft. This is why helical mount is realtively easy to handle.
On the other hand: if you have no trouble with focussing near/at infinity this is a beautiful camera!
M line two : Barely over 2 kg (4,4 lbs)http://www.precisioncameraworks.com/Media/Mline2.pdf
Yes, I see on the 2 they've removed tilt and swing from the rear standard. Looks like now the M-2 has front and rear rise, rear shift and front swing and tilt. Actually, for my needs, this is perfect balance --- helps keep things aligned and keeps the weight manageable, while maintaining all the movements I regularly use on each standard. Still like it as my preferred choice right now.
Last edited by thomas; 21st March 2010 at 12:51.
(Shame on me still rebuking myself for naughty dreams with an arTec.) ... aaah ... one day...
Again... your artec lens shade idea is absolutely a gem!
And BTW: FORGET any DOF indication for the 47XL, it simply doesn't work if you are really demanding WRT to focus.
me too :-) if Sinar would have offered Contax mount from the very beginning I'd use an arTec today. I talked to the guys at Sinar the other day and apparently Contax mount is at least not without the realms of possibility as there were some other photographers asking for it as well. Obviously they would even think about mounting a Digitar for me (I'm fine with the Rodenstock line but I'd like to keep the 47XL resp. upcoming 43XL as they provide really huge image circles).(Shame on me still rebuking myself for naughty dreams with an arTec.) ... aaah ... one day...
On the other hand the WRS is really a very, very nice compact camera offering a lot of features. And as long as you don't have too much trouble working without a sliding back it will do fine. Very fine actually.
not really an "idea". I just scrolled through the accessory items on the Sinar site and found the lens shade. As it is mounted on the lens it's obvious that you can use it on all large format lenses.Again... your artec lens shade idea is absolutely a gem!
It has almost the same measurements than the WRS body (same height and a bit wider)... so if you stand in front of the camera you won't see the camera at all :-)
Looking forward to shooting with the ArTec pretty much all day in Tampa on Thursday, March 25th. I'm not much of an architectural shooter but I will try to get some decent shots and post them up. Tampa does have some nice architectural subject matter... I just hope the weather cooperates. If there's anyone reading this who would like to join us please pm me and I'll see what I can do.
I'm returning to play with the artec again and see what horse trading I can do. I'm going to convince my artec dealer to loan me his unit for my Nullabor/Wilpena Pound expendition - just for pleasure. google those places and you will know why. I was there 20yrs ago with my 6x6 Biogon but got the wrong film to capture the red landscapes - I ONLY had T-Max film!
Anyone here any experience with the 40mm HR lens forthe Artec?
I am thinking of exchanging my 35mm HR for the 40mm with the larger image circle.
With the 35 I can shift around up to 12mm but would like more.
What is it specifically you want to know? No doubt there would be plenty of feedbacks in due course.
We definitely test for flares - in direct sunlight = NO flares. Of course we didn't purposely shoot to create flares...
We also tilt more than 2* deg. We didn't do stitching. Sinar DB seems okay.
May be DAvid K can enlighten us as he is going out shooting Thurs.
I just want a good working DB if I am going to horse-trade my RS for an artec. Otherwise, no point in getting an artec! (What good is 20/20 vision with fuzzy brain?)
What's good enough for you is good enough for me to demo the intended purpose. I wouldn't mind seeing Tampa FL again!
The 35HR is very sharp even wide open.
I am interested if the 40HR is also very sharp wide open and if I could expect overall the same performance as the 40HR .
Pretty sure the lens will be the non-HR 40. I'm going to try some shots around the University of Tampa (where my daughter is a second year student) which has some really beautiful buildings, campus, etc. Get to hug and kiss my daughter after shooting... a nice fringe benefit
At a special price of just over of A$10k (export), I am NOT going to tempt fate (but I will next wk) in becoming the next victim in ownership ("Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly").
...So if I remember what I did last Tues with the HR40, on the Sinar 75, I don't think I saw any obvious adversities - other than my focusing and TS movements - as I was getting adjusted to GG slider. I know I had it wide open and to f8. but of course, the old rule of thumb in stopping down.
Someone had mentioned about the "moustache" on the MTF chart.
David of Sinar AU is actually going to play with the request - so to allow him to fudge the results - (just kidding).